Here are some highlights from the latest ESA Policy News by Policy Analyst Terence Houston. Read the full Policy News here.
BUDGET: SCIENCE INVESTMENT MIXED BAG IN PRESIDENT’S FY 2015 PROPOSAL
On March 4, the president released his annual proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2015. The budget proposal functions as a wish list of what the administration will seek to prioritize in federal policy in the coming year. However, Congress, holding the “power of the purse,” generally has the final say on how these priorities are funded.
Overall, the president’s budget would dedicate $135.4 billion for federal R&D, a 1.2 percent increase over 2014. According to the Office of Science and Technology Policy, this falls short of the 1.7 increase in inflation expected from 2014-2015. The lackluster funding is an attempt by the administration to accommodate the budget caps set forth in the recent budget deal by Senate and House Budget Committee Chairs Patty Murray (D-WA) and Paul Ryan (R-WI).
The administration does seek to shore up some of these shortfalls in research investment through additional research funding for federal agencies included in its proposed $56 billion Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative. The fact that the extra $56 billion breaches the $1.014 spending ceiling agreed to in the Murray-Ryan budget deal makes it unlikely to gain traction on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, however, have expressed that they will likely stick to the budget ceilings outlined in the Murray-Ryan budget deal.
NSFwould receive $7.25 billion, a 1.2 percent increase over FY 2014. NSF research and related activities would be funded at $5.72, a $2 million decrease from FY 2014. The $7.25 billion request number marks the lowest request for NSF in the president’s budget since FY 2010 when the White House requested $7.045 for the agency.
Additional information on the FY 2015 budget proposal’s research investments is available here.
INTERIOR: FY 2015 BUDGET GIVES CONSERVATION INITIATIVES FUNDING BOOST
The president’s proposed budget would provide the US Department of Interior with $11.9 billion in Fiscal Year 2015, a 2.4 percent increase over enacted FY 2014 funding for the agency. Agency research and development would be funded at $889 billion, a seven percent increase over FY 2014.
The president’s budget would annually fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million beginning in FY 2015. Interior youth programs directed towards employment and volunteerism would receive $50.6 million in FY 2015, a 37 percent increase over FY 2014. The budget includes $66.5 million for WaterSMART programs, an almost 17 percent increase to fund agency water conservation initiatives.
Additional funding for bureaus and programs under Interior’s jurisdiction include:
America’s Great Outdoors: $5.1 billion, a $127.1 million increase.
Bureau of Indian Affairs: $2.6 billion, a $33.6 million increase.
Bureau of Land Management: $1.1 billion, a $5 million decrease.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management: $169.8 million, a $2.9 million increase.
Bureau of Reclamation: $1.1 billion, a $116.8 million decrease.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement: $204.6 million, a $2 million increase.
US Fish and Wildlife Service: $1.5 billion, a $48.8 million increase.
US Geological Survey: $1.1 billion, a $41.3 million increase.
National Park Service: $2.6 billion, a $55.1 million increase.
Additional details on the Dept. of Interior FY 2015 budget proposal are available here:
EPA: AGENCY FALLS VICTIM TO MORE CUTS IN FY 2015 BUDGET
Across the board, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would see a number of environmental restoration efforts cut in the president’s budget. The president’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 budget proposal would provide EPA with $7.89 billion, a decrease of $309.9 million (or a 3.7 percent cut) from FY 2014. This marks the fifth straight year the administration has proposed funding cuts for the agency.
EPA’s Clean Air and Global Change program would receive $260 million for federal efforts to enforce greenhouse gas and other air quality regulations, down from $272 million in FY 2014. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative would receive $275 million, a $25 million cut from FY 2014. The Gulf of Mexico program would receive $3.8 million, a 15 percent cut.
The budget does include a few bright spots. Science and technology programs at EPA would be funded at $763.8 million, a $4.6 million increase over FY 2014. Climate and air quality programs at the agency would receive $474, a $19 million increase. In the wake of the recent spill in West Virginia, the Chemical Safety Board would receive $12 million in FY 2015, a $1 million increase. The Chesapeake Bay program would increase by $3 million to $73 million in the FY 2015 budget proposal.
Additional information on the FY 2015 EPA budget is available here.
HOUSE: SCIENCE COMMITTEE REVIEWS EPA CARBON CAPTURE PROPOSAL
On March 12, the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittees on Energy and Environment convened for a hearing on the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems. The hearing reignited the partisan divide over the agency’s authority to enforce regulations to reduce carbon emissions.
“My colleagues and I received testimony from a variety of professionals in the energy field on the EPA’s [New Source Performance Standards] proposal, which revealed an immature mandate request for utility companies, based on flimsy scientific data, and oversight without legitimate, existing infrastructure for our energy production,” asserted Environment Subcommittee Chairman David Schweikert (R-AZ). “Until these technologies are proven to be commercially available for our utilities companies without risks of harm to the storage location of carbon dioxide, our cities’ power suppliers will be left with very little options for compliance and freedom to grow their businesses.”
Subcommittee Democrats asserted that the rules, which only apply to new power plants, will help counter the effects of climate change and that the regulations will help promote technological development in the private sector and protect public health. “The proposed EPA rule will create a market incentive for the continued development and promotion of carbon capture and storage, or CCS, technologies,” asserted Environment Subcommittee Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR). “The advancement of CCS technologies is essential if new coal power plants are to operate in the low carbon future we must achieve.”
View the full hearing here.
HOUSE: SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES OPPOSE RESEARCH REAUTHORIZATION BILL
On Mar. 13, the House, Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Technology marked-up and approved H.R. 4186, the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technology (FIRST) Act. The bill would reauthorizes spending levels and set priorities for the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The FIRST Act is one of several bills that would reauthorize the 2007 AMERICA COMPETES Act, last reauthorized in 2010. Unlike past reauthorizations, the current House bill was drafted predominantly with input from the majority party, raising the partisan ire of Democrats who concurred with many of the concerns expressed by the scientific research community.
Under the bill, NSF funding would increase 1.5 percent between Fiscal Year 2014 and 2015, below the expected 1.7 percent rate of inflation during that period. Committee Democrats have introduced an alternative measure to the FIRST Act (H.R. 4159) that would increase funding for NSF and other federal science entities by five percent.
The FIRST Act has raised concern among the scientific community for the low levels its sets for NSF and other federal science priorities. The week of the mark-up, 75 scientific societies and institutions, including the Ecological Society of America, co-signed a letter drafted through the Coalition for National Science Funding voicing their concern with the measure.
“H.R. 4186 provides low authorization levels for the National Science Foundation, forcing trade-offs that undercut important advances in science, and decimates the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate by authorizing funding at significantly low and unwarranted levels,” notes the letter. “The basic science discoveries in the social and behavioral sciences are critical to addressing national needs and are worthy of tax-payer support.”